Falklands 1982 vs 2012

Skybird · 02-27-12, 04:27 PM

BBC has a nice vis-a-vis comparison of chances and resources used in a Flakland war today, and back then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

Skybird · 02-27-12, 04:27 PM

^ Flakland, eh?

nikimcbee · 02-27-12, 04:38 PM

Quote:

The Falklands War was 30 years ago. "But in military terms it is 100 years ago," says Clarke. British forces have advanced about 60 years in sophistication, but Argentine forces have barely improved, still using military hardware from the 1970s and 80s. Southby-Tailyour says they no longer have the landing craft to make an amphibious landing possible. However their special forces are highly respected.
Most military thinkers agree they offer the only credible threat through a surprise attack on Mt Pleasant. One scenario might be a civilian airliner packed with special forces to divert to Mt Pleasant, says Colonel Southby-Tailyour. "It would take a very brave politician to shoot down a civilian airliner in cold blood. The Argentine forces are good. They could jump out and shoot everything up."

Does Britain have the political will to fight for it?

mapuc · 02-27-12, 04:48 PM

I have in some article read that Brazil and some other country i South america is on Argentines side on it's demand.

So I believe that this time Argentina would not fight alone, if it should come to that.

Markus

_dgn_ · 02-27-12, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

^ Flakland, eh?

There are maybe now a lot of AA guns in the island ...

Another thing : if UK had today to use cruise liners for transporting their reinforcement troops, I would not be a good idea for the Royal Navy to requisition any Costa ship ...

soopaman2 · 02-27-12, 05:21 PM

Most the South American countries would jump in this time.

Hugo Chavez would use it to poke at America using Britain as a proxy. Kinda like cold war era "proxy" wars.

A second Falklands war would actually be a noble undertaking for America to help its British friends.

We can help free the savages in Iraq and Afghanistan, why not help our mother country.

Don't most the Falklanders enjoy being under the British commonwealth? I always got that impression.

You guys oughta trade the Falklands with us for Puerto Rico. I will not throw in Guam. That is ours.

Where did you learn such imperialism son?

I LEARNED IT FROM YOU!

(old anti drug commercial, sorry)

Herr-Berbunch · 02-27-12, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _dgn_

Another thing : if UK had today to use cruise liners for transporting their reinforcement troops, I would not be a good idea for the Royal Navy to requisition any Costa ship ...

To requisition any vessels we'd have to invade Panama or Mauritania first, we don't have any left!

Karle94 · 02-27-12, 05:40 PM

The article says the Brits can´t take the island back without carriers, which the Brits does´t have. Maybe they can borrow one from the US, according to the article one of those is equal to 10 of the ones the Brits had in 82. America has 11, surely they can put one on a southerly cruise.

Skybird · 02-27-12, 05:51 PM

I got the impression that the British argument is that the Argentinians find it hard these days to even reach the island in strength, with an unsuspected airdrop on the airfield being their only option. Said airfield also is the British main supply gate now, and reinforcement gate. I think they know how to defend it, therefore. Back then, main supply was via ships.

Just 4 fighters nevertheless looks thin to me. Maintenance breakdowns, repairs, wear-and tear, the lucky hit for the enemy, accidents during refuiling... 4 can very fast falling down to 3 or 2 or 1.

Brazil will not throw its military weight into any war, i think. Its not good when two nuclear powers start shooting at each other, and the business ties to Europe and the Yanks are precious. Venezuela is far away.

I think chances for an Argentinian attack are very very very slim anyway.

mapuc · 02-27-12, 06:17 PM

I think that this whole story will end up with some kind of a UN-resolution that makes the habitant on the island vote for who they want to control them
England or Argentina.

Or perhaps none of them

Markus

_dgn_ · 02-27-12, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

4 can very fast falling down to 3 or 2 or 1.

For Britain, it's enough !!!

It was already the case during WWII in Malta, with the 3 Hawker Hurricanes defending the island : Faith, Hope and Charity ...

Sailor Steve · 02-27-12, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2

A second Falklands war would actually be a noble undertaking for America to help its British friends.

Whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? NO EUROPEAN CONTROL IN THIS HEMISPHERE!

Definitely just kidding, but it is an interesting question.

TLAM Strike · 02-27-12, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _dgn_

For Britain, it's enough !!!

It was already the case during WWII in Malta, with the 3 Hawker Hurricanes defending the island : Faith, Hope and Charity ...

That is what the Typhoons deployed to the Falklands are named, they added Desperation for #4.

BTW I thought they were Gloster Gladiators?

_dgn_ · 02-27-12, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

That is what the Typhoons deployed to the Falklands are named, they added Desperation for #4.

BTW I thought they were Gloster Gladiators?

You are right, there was also a dozen of Gloster Gladiators.

But the myth is more beautiful with only 3 heroic planes ...

Karle94 · 02-27-12, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _dgn_

You are right, there was also a dozen of Gloster Gladiators.

But the myth is more beautiful with only 3 heroic planes ...

Until the Wasp arrived with planes, that got bombed the moment they landed, then Wasp returned again along with Eagle carrying more planes. Saving Malta. Another happy ending.

02-27-12, 04:27 PM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Falklands 1982 vs 2012 BBC has a nice vis-a-vis comparison of chances and resources used in a Flakland war today, and back then. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373 __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

02-27-12, 04:27 PM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	^ Flakland, eh? __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

02-27-12, 05:21 PM	#6
soopaman2 Der Alte Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 3,316 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 0	Most the South American countries would jump in this time. Hugo Chavez would use it to poke at America using Britain as a proxy. Kinda like cold war era "proxy" wars. A second Falklands war would actually be a noble undertaking for America to help its British friends. We can help free the savages in Iraq and Afghanistan, why not help our mother country. Don't most the Falklanders enjoy being under the British commonwealth? I always got that impression. You guys oughta trade the Falklands with us for Puerto Rico. I will not throw in Guam. That is ours. Where did you learn such imperialism son? I LEARNED IT FROM YOU! (old anti drug commercial, sorry) __________________ If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. -Winston Churchill- The most fascinating man in the world.

02-27-12, 05:40 PM	#8
Karle94 The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Norseland Posts: 1,355 Downloads: 253 Uploads: 0	The article says the Brits can´t take the island back without carriers, which the Brits does´t have. Maybe they can borrow one from the US, according to the article one of those is equal to 10 of the ones the Brits had in 82. America has 11, surely they can put one on a southerly cruise. __________________ Find my mods here: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/lzgciodldp58p/SH4_Mods My SH4 blog here: http://karle94.blogspot.com/

02-27-12, 05:51 PM	#9
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I got the impression that the British argument is that the Argentinians find it hard these days to even reach the island in strength, with an unsuspected airdrop on the airfield being their only option. Said airfield also is the British main supply gate now, and reinforcement gate. I think they know how to defend it, therefore. Back then, main supply was via ships. Just 4 fighters nevertheless looks thin to me. Maintenance breakdowns, repairs, wear-and tear, the lucky hit for the enemy, accidents during refuiling... 4 can very fast falling down to 3 or 2 or 1. Brazil will not throw its military weight into any war, i think. Its not good when two nuclear powers start shooting at each other, and the business ties to Europe and the Yanks are precious. Venezuela is far away. I think chances for an Argentinian attack are very very very slim anyway. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

02-27-12, 04:48 PM	#4
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,535 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	I have in some article read that Brazil and some other country i South america is on Argentines side on it's demand. So I believe that this time Argentina would not fight alone, if it should come to that. Markus __________________ My little lovely female cat

02-27-12, 06:17 PM	#10
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,535 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	I think that this whole story will end up with some kind of a UN-resolution that makes the habitant on the island vote for who they want to control them England or Argentina. Or perhaps none of them Markus __________________ My little lovely female cat